133 So. 3d 258 - State v. Webb’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Legislative acts are presumed to be constitutional. State v. Bazile, 2011-2201, p. 6 (La.1/24/12), 85 So.3d 1, 4 . Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, the defense failed to meet its burden of proving unconstitutional purposeful discrimination on the basis of race in the enactment of the non-unanimous jury verdict provision of Art. 116 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1898. The defendant cited no specific evidence in his trial court motion from which it can be concluded that non-unanimous verdicts actually resulted in a disparate impact on African-Americans in the years following the enactment of Art. 116 of the 1898 Constitution. It is recognized that, as a practical matter, such evidence likely would be difficult to compile. However, it remains defendant’s burden to prove a racially dispctr- rate impact. The defendant cannot rely on mere argument and historical documents referring to intentional disenfranchisement without expert testimony to tie the racial animus behind voting restrictions to a similar racial animus behind Article 116, specifically. State v. Hankton, 2012-0375 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/2/13) , 122 So.3d 1028 . While the defendant in this case may have established racial motivation behind the 1898 constitutional provisions on voting, he has not established that every difference between the 1898 Constitution and the 1879 Constitution is the product of racial animus, (emphasis supplied).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 151 So. 3d 946 - State v. Frith

2. “... a rape committed upon a person sixty-five years of age or older or where the anal, oral, or vaginal sexual intercourse is deemed to be without lawful consent of the victim because it is committed under any one or more of the following circumstances: [[Image here]] (4) When the victim is under the age of thirteen years. Lack of knowledge of the victim’s age shall not be a defense.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 151 So. 3d 871 - State v. Porter

3. “within the sound discretion of the trier of fact and will not be disturbed unless clearly contrary to the evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Carter